I think that treating, even naming, a one-on-one like an event is symptomatic of deeper problems that plague people playing work. My "one-on-ones"? I used to w

I think that treating, even naming, a one-on-one like an event is symptomatic of deeper problems that plague people playing work. My "one-on-ones"? I used to walk with a team member in the city streets to change environments. Countless hours of conversations at any time on the balcony or inside when no one was there, while munching on something and drinking tea or a café au lait, or sharing a sandwich, a meal, galette, pizza, chips, or anything. Leftovers. Everything goes. We've worked to reduce information asymmetry. What's a one-on-one, really? Two people talking. They should be doing that often enough that there's no build-up of whatever accepted quantity of work-related puss that makes a conversation into an event to be named and scheduled. I doubt there's a need for yet another friction point to conversations that should take place more frequently, because they turn them into the ever more elaborate rituals that they already are in badly run teams and companies.